The Stephenson County State's Attorney and his Walnut Acres Dance

 At the last Stephenson County Board meeting on April 20th Stephenson County State's Attorney Carl Larson was asked about an Illinois statute which applies to Illinois's county run nursing homes.  The part of the statute the State's Attorney attempted to address is this paragraph, 55 ILCS 5/5-21001(9).

"Upon the vote of a 2/3 majority of all the members of the board, to sell, dispose of or lease for any term, any part of the home properties in such manner and upon such terms as it deems best for the interest of the county, and to make and execute all necessary conveyances thereof in the same manner as other conveyances of real estate may be made by a county. However, if the home was erected after referendum approval by the voters of the county, it shall not be sold or disposed of except after referendum approval thereof by a majority of the voters of the county voting thereon."

The last clause of this statute is what is pertinent to Stephenson County's present situation, as a matter of fact, State's Attorney Larson cited the last clause verbatim to the Stephenson County Board.  Again, that clause is, "if the home was erected after referendum approval by the voters of the county, it shall not be sold or disposed of except after referendum approval thereof by a majority of the voters of the county voting thereon."

You may view Mr. Larson's presentation at this YouTube link, it begins at 18:57.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2bhIYW5M8g&t=1260s

Mr. Larson goes on quite a stretch of illusionary legal reasoning in an attempt to bifurcate the building from the legal entity.  Please watch the video where he attempts to define the words "erect"  and "nursing home" in a blatant attempt to mislead the Stephenson County Board and the public at large regarding plain as day Illinois Statutes.

Clearly our State's Attorney Larson desperately needs a lesson on statutory construction as determined by the Illinois Supreme Court.

I am in possession of an Illinois Supreme Court opinion that states, "A primary purpose of statutory construction is to ascertain the legislative intention.  In seeking the intent of the legislature, courts consider not only the language used but also the evil to be remedied and the object to be attained.  Furthermore it is well settled that, in the absence of statutory definitions indicating a different legislative intention, the courts will assume that words have their ordinary and popularly understood meanings" Citations have been removed, however anyone can copy and paste the quoted material and find this opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois.

Clearly, in passing this statute, the General Assembly wanted to ensure that if the electors of a county had supported a county "home" through a bond sale approved at referendum, the county board acting alone could not pull the rug out from underneath something the public has willingly supported with their tax dollars and votes for decades.  

In my opinion, the statute was meant to give the future of county homes--that had been supported by past bond issues courtesy of referendums--to the public at large and not the county board.

I would be interested in seeing a written response from State's Attorney Larson as to what problem he thinks the General Assembly was trying to remedy in the statutory clause  he recited to the county board above?

I believe this clause is enforceable by any citizen of Stephenson County with a simple action in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court for a couple hundred dollars.  I'd go in pro se on this issue just to see the State's Attorney turn himself inside out attempting to tell the court the statute in question means something beyond its plain and reasonable meaning.

Another problem with our State's Attorney.  Why is he twisting himself into a pretzel on behalf of the Helms' cabal?  I like to think that a state's attorney does the public a greater service by making sure that the real power stays vested with the people and not the few citizens who happen to be county board members.  I think it would be more prudent for Mr. Larson to side with the public over the board.

Personally, I don't have a strong opinion whether or not we continue to maintain a county nursing home.  However, I believe that is a decision that should rest with the voters of Stephenson County and not the Stephenson County Board.

What's more important is Illinois Statutes demand that the public weigh in via referendum before a county home is disposed of or sold.  I welcome a written response from State's Attorney Larson.  It will be much less stressful for him to discuss this here rather than in front of a court, but I just might be down for some fun, I've got nothing to lose but a couple hundred dollars.

As always, yours in honesty, John Samuel Cook

2023